- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on be half of opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. , Act No. 13 of 1972. THE said applica nts was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the opposite party No. 1 filed an appeal which is pend ing before the appellate authority. In the said appeal an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Rule 22 of the rules framed thereunder. THE said application of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 3-1-2001. Being ag grieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lower Appel late Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. It has also been submitted that the daughter of the landlord is married and as the said fact was denied by the landlord, the Appellate Court ought to have allowed the applica tion. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1981 ALJ NOC 7, Asgan Dass v. The Prescribed Authority and another. The learned counsel for the op posite party No. 1 submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner as in the affidavit which was filed before the appellate authority on behalf of opposite party No. 1 it was specifically stated that the daughter is still unmarried. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in 1998 (2) ARC 573, Ram Pratap v. District Judge, Dehradun and others, 1989 (1) ARC 407; Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. The Prescribed Authority/munsif, Basti and another, and 1988 (2) ARC 481; Mohd. Ayub Siddiqui v. IVth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur and others.
(3.) 1 have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. The application for release are decided by the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority on the basis of the affidavit which is the prescribed procedure under the Act and Rules. The question whether the daughter is married or unmarried can be decided on the basis of the affidavit and the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners moved under Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13of 1972 read with Rule 22. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly rejected at the admission stage. The rent appeal is pend ing for the last more than 5 years and as such the appellate authority (Vth Addi tional District Judge, Hardoi) is hereby directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. .;